Oil Imports—and Vulnerability—Increasing
20 December 2004
AFP. In a recent audiotape message, Osama Bin Laden urged his followers to focus their attacks on oil sites in the Gulf and Iraq while also urging Saudi leaders to give up power or face a popular uprising.
“Take jihad to stop (the Americans) getting hold of (the oil). Concentrate your operations on the oil, in particular in Iraq and the Gulf,” said the voice on the tape attributed to the Al-Qaeda leader.
The Saudi branch of Al Qaeda echoed the call on its websites. Given the tightness of global oil supply balanced against demand, a major disruption would be quite harmful. Additionally, not only is the US importing more oil than a year ago, it is importing more oil from OPEC and from the Persian Gulf producers (not entirely overlapping sets).
For the first 9 months of the year, the US imported, on average, 10 million barrels of oil per day, a 3.6% increase from the 9.65 million barrels per day average for the first 9 months of 2003. Imports from OPEC jumped 11.1% between those two periods, from 4.532 mbpd to 5.036 mbpd. Non-OPEC imports dropped 3.0% from 5.12 mbpd to 4.964 mbpd.
For the month of September 2004, the US imported 75.5 million barrels of crude from Persian Gulf countries, representing 26% of actual imports, up from 70 million barrels in Sep 2003.
![]() |
![]() |
The US is not solely dependent upon the Gulf or OPEC—33.5% of imports in September came from Canada and Mexico. But the increasing reliance on imported oil, and within that the increasing reliance on OPEC/Gulf States is a trend heading in the wrong direction. While there certainly is a great deal of talk about reducing dependency on oil, the data shows we are doing the opposite. Given the current situation in oil production (many countries having peaked, global peaking looming probably within the decade) that’s to be expected. If you need more oil, then you have to go to the sources that can provide it.
But for everyone who rejects the environmental rationales for increased immediate emphasis on fuel efficiency, alternatives and emissions reduction, how about considering economic self-interest? Do you really want to buy the rope with which you will be hung?
Resources:
Oil Imports—and Vulnerability—Increasing:
"But for everyone who rejects the environmental rationales for increased immediate emphasis on fuel efficiency, alternatives and emissions reduction, how about considering economic self-interest? Do you really want to buy the rope with which you will be hung?"
Conversely the Enviromentalist are suppling the material for those ropes buy not letting the US drill for more of it's oil at home.
Posted by: Matt | 22 December 2004 at 11:35 AM
Well, yes, and no. Let’s take ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) as a case in point. Drilling in ANWR is arguably the best shot the US has at offsetting its declining domestic oil production.
In March of this year, the Energy Information Administration, at the request of Representative Richard W. Pombo, Chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Resources, published a report analyzing—to the extent that anyone can without sinking a well shaft down through the coastal plain—the effect of drilling in ANWR.
The EIA’s best-guess mean case is that:
It will take 10 years to bring production on line (comparable to other Arctic drilling).
By 2025, ANWR could be producing up to 870,000 barrels of oil per day.
Assuming that every barrel of ANWR oil is consumed domestically, it will reduce imports on a barrel for barrel basis.
Given the EIA’s projections of declines in domestic oil production and increases in oil consumption, by 2025 ANWR would reduce US reliance on imported oil from 70% to 66%.
In other words, ANWR oil would make a difference, but not a strategic difference. It doesn’t solve the problem. The US will still be exposed by reliance on oil imports. Even if we had all the ANWR oil available today, we’d still be importing 9.1 million barrels per day, and climbing.
I think it much better to solve the root of the problem—ever-increasing demand for a finite resource. That’s not an environmental argument, just pragmatic.
Here’s the EIA report: Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Posted by: Mike | 22 December 2004 at 06:53 PM